Email this article to a friend

Thursday, Sep 28, 2017, 5:25 pm

Hugh Hefner Wasn’t Just a Creep—He Was Also a Shitty Boss

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

The Playboy empire was built on the backs of female workers. (Rachel Murray/Getty Images for Playboy)

To hear some tell it, Hugh Hefner changed what it meant to be a man in the 20th century. In place of God, country and family values, “Hef”—a persona so intensely branded that it’s hard to type without instinctively adding a (TM) to it—offered up cool jazz, hot chicks, weird bathrobes and the kind of literary sophistication that you could only get when a short story was printed directly opposite a close-up of some lady’s areolas.

The fact that women were mere props in this vision—luxury goods that men acquired to prove their swinging cred—seems not to bother those who embrace the ideal of Hefness. But in fact, the Playboy empire was built on the backs of female workers, who were expected to keep smiling and propping up Hefner’s brand through enormous amounts of grueling labor

The most famous feminist critique of the Playboy empire centered on those women. The Playboy Club, as per Gloria Steinem’s 1963 expose, was a minefield of unethical labor practices. Hostesses were paid minimum wage plus tips—but the establishment kept 50 percent of the tips. (“We may keep all tips that are given to us in cash,” Steinem explained, “but if we indicate any preference for cash tips we will be fired.”) Their wages could be effectively garnished thanks to a demerit system; “bad make-up” was five demerits, eating on the job could be up to 30 demerits and lead to a dismissal, and taking a long break would cost you a demerit per minute. Bunnies were also expected to pay for their own costumes, which were perpetually being demolished by drunk, horny patrons; the bunny tails were a particularly common target for grabbing and ripping. And that was if you were lucky: “I told [a customer] our tails were asbestos,” one Bunny complained to Steinem, “so he tried to burn it to find out.”

But, most important of all, even Bunnies who were being set on fire by their customers were expected to keep flirting with them. Though they were not allowed to sell sex, they were expected to sell the illusion of availability, mainly because it kept the booze flowing. “We depend on our Bunnies to express the personality of the magazine,” the employment manual instructed. “Bunnies are reminded that there are many pleasing means they can employ to stimulate the Club’s liquor volume… you should make it seem that [the customer’s] opinions are very important.”

Above and beyond the physical and financial miseries of the job, this all falls under the heading of “emotional labor”—the work that goes into seeming engaged, interested, caring and receptive even to strangers (at a job) or hostile and unfulfilling partners (at home). Hefner’s vision implied that, once appropriately “liberated,” women would become paragons of giddy, carefree, sexually receptive femininity, paving the way for a world where pretty girls were always thrilled to serve you, and a man’s opinion was always “very important,” no matter how drunk, belligerent, or arson-prone that particular man might be. Not surprisingly, uncritical and unconditional feminine “friendliness” wasn’t a naturally occurring substance. It was work taken on by particular women, who had to learn to simulate it, for minimum wage plus tips.

It would be one thing if Hefner learned from the feminist spankings he got. But he evidently never did. In 2015, Girls Next Door star Holly Madison revealed the work that went into being Hef’s “girlfriend” on national TV. Among other abuses—he controlled the girls’ bedtimes (9 PM, tops) and was so strict about their attention that, at parties, they were only allowed to leave Hef’s side for toilet breaks—he slipped a photo of himself with the girls under their bedroom doors each night, so that they could evaluate their appearance. It reminded them of why they were there: To look good, in order to make Hef look good.

Hefner lived a long life—long enough to polish his brand into something resembling family-friendliness, and to re-write his own narrative in a way that eliminated any allegations of unsavory behavior. (Though those allegations did keep coming.) There were talk-show appearances and friendly biographies. There was the extended whitewashing, not only of Girls Next Door, but the failed drama The Playboy Club, in which Hugh Hefner was a charming, avuncular presence looking to help the Bunnies achieve their goals and dreams. (SPOILER: Their goals and dreams were, mostly, to be in Playboy.) By the end of his life, Hugh Hefner was the Stan Lee of sex: A cute, quirky, harmless grandpa-type who was a little bit out of touch but adorably enthusiastic. The rapacious, distant boss who would take chunks out of your paycheck if you were caught eating had been erased from the picture.

Don’t buy it. Hugh Hefner looked harmless because he paid women to look happy. Alongside Hefner’s brand of “sexual liberation,” a real liberatory philosophy has grown—one founded on the works of queer people and women, which points out that crappy, straight sex with crappy, straight guys is anything but “revolutionary.” That variety of sexual liberation—which, yes, includes ethically made porn and sex work—is the one we should be celebrating. You can have sex without forcing women to fake it. In fact, for the good kind of sex, that’s pretty much required.

Help In These Times Continue Publishing

Progressive journalism is needed now more than ever, and In These Times needs you.

Agree totally with Ms. D here - Hefner was a sleazy exploiter of women, as witness the recent huge corporate-sponsored attempt to rewrite him as some kind of revisionist folk hero. Saying Hefner championed women's rights is like saying Hitler championed Jewish rights. Hilarious how all the scared little whack-offs who lived on Playboy during their adolescence - and never left it - stand behind this vile monster and the cataclysmic industry he wrought.

Posted by Cora Brigg on 2018-02-07 11:21:39

You are a liberal lying piece of shit. There are hundreds of containers full of supplies sitting there with no one unloading them to get it to the people. That is the fault of the Rican red tape. Trump can't hand feed the dumbasses.

Posted by Elbert White on 2017-10-07 01:40:24

Hey bitch! Nobody forced them to work there or to keep working there. A real shame you didn't have the balls to complain or confront him while he was alive to defend himself and retaliate. Dumb bitch!

Posted by Elbert White on 2017-10-07 01:36:47

As far as I know, nobody ever forced these women to work at the Playboy clubs or to appear in Playboy Magazine. They made their own choices, and could change them at any time. Does anybody think working at McDonalds is less demeaning or exploitative, or more pleasurable, for that matter?

Posted by Rob on 2017-10-06 20:41:54

We can not count on Trump when a catastrophe happens. In fact, he probably will bring us into one.We really got the worst possible person at the worst time in office.

One person can change the world, for the worse.

Posted by sisk is a risk on 2017-10-06 15:53:35

Apparently, Hugh Hefner just wasn't your kind of sex pervert. What you easily ignore is that his empire (and others of the porn industry) led the charge that made your brand of pervert socially-acceptable. You are still chasing the illusion that sexual promiscuity is sustainable or could be ethical. The idea of "ethically made porn" is as illusory as the Playboy Bunny. The term is self-contradictory, anyway.

Posted by Pooua on 2017-10-06 09:18:00

This story sounds pretty much like every cocktail waitress in every successful cocktail bar in the world.

Posted by travelingslut on 2017-10-06 08:38:26

you went full retardlicon son, never go full retardlicon

Posted by Mitt Zombie on 2017-10-05 23:43:22

Those women had choices and they made them. They Chose to work at the Playboy club because they found it better then any other choice they had. Women Chose to be his girlfriends not in the name of love but in the name of greed that's right they did it to grow their brand get famous and get paid. You want to get on the band wagon for mistreated exploited women then you should be doing something about human trafficking their you will find women, children, and yes men who have had all choices removed.

Posted by MrNight on 2017-10-05 10:40:40

...and coming up short.

Posted by seekeroftruth on 2017-10-05 10:37:04

Nice riposte!

Posted by rjseva on 2017-10-01 09:19:58

Hugh Hefner never did a single goddamn thing for women's rights.

Posted by Law on 2017-10-01 06:40:47

So you decided to run with the whole "Alternative Facts" idea huh?

Posted by Muddy Mudskipper on 2017-09-30 22:58:26

You...are treating feminism as a dick measuring contest?

Posted by J.Goff on 2017-09-30 22:02:20

Someone who cares so much about PR and women's rights could probably use his time/energy doing something about them, instead of wasting said time/energy attacking a woman writer on the internet.

Posted by brettvk on 2017-09-30 17:05:55

Trump is killing real people in Puerto Rico, but please continue to rewrite history to bash a dead guy who did more for women's rights than you ever will.

Posted by Henry Plantagenet on 2017-09-30 14:50:54

About this Blog

Working In These Times brings you weekly coverage of the labor movement and the struggle of workers everywhere to organize for a better world. more